Search results

that sounds much more like the D&D I play then anything KarinsDad has said. In fact everything KarinsDad says sounds more like something out of knights of the dinner table then any table I would play at.

so you are fine with 2-3 years of playing a campaign you do not like, but wont let a friend play a race he wants in your world... does not compute. If you are willing to play something you don't like for YEARS, how is that worse then asking to play a Dragon born???

I think anyone un willing to budge on anything is at least a little bit unreasonable, but the farther you get from life and death the more unreasonable it is... when it is in the game we play of make believe I think it is pig headed to say "I'm unwilling to consider a compromise" I'm not the...

I really just took your words at face value, I'm sorry if I misunderstood. Your right, taking 2 races and 3 or 4 classes is way more reasnoble then it sounded before... still I disagree with your thoughts, but Im really not trying to misconstrue your thoughts... not exactly that... but way back...

even worse if it is a large group and each want to get different prc that all make sense in the world you are just asking for a bad hackney story or splitting the party in a major way

no I trusted your numbers 540 your number... 440 your number... so 100 out of about 500 so just under 20%... by your numbers not mine, don't call BS on me when I used your numbers I call BS too, of course if 6 people sit down to play a game and 5 say we want X and one says no I want Y it...

my problem isn't with "Hey I listened and talked and tried, but we couldn't get it to work" my problem is... well the post after yours

some one brought up evil PCs... that is a great example what I think it should be: PC: can I be Lawful Evil DM: I don't run evil PCs... PC: How come? DM: I don't like PC vs PC conflict and I want to run a game where you help people. PC: What if my evil PC didn't hit either of those problems...

your the unreasonable one if you think I need to read through 100 class/race options that are disallowed before saying "Can I play X" and even more so if you think 100 is a small number 20%ish or play with the DMs who are willing to work with players... well I have DMed I play a lot more, and I...

now you see here is a great example... lets say you sat at a FLGS to run your world every Wednesday night... I came by and said "Cool is there an open seat for a player" and you said sure and gave me a brief bit of this and I asked if I could be a warlock, and you said "Not this time, but if you...

but when one person (on either side of the DM screen) says "Can we talk about it" and the other side says "No my way or the highway" I don't understand how it matters whitch side of the screen your on. I see it very differently, the DM is just another player of the game, and as such is no more...

See this is where we see eye to eye... I also love getting indepth with cultures, but in a different way. In one game I ran I had 4 human cultures each at different magic and technological levels (although when one went up the other went down) 2 gnome civilizations (one tinker one illusionsit)...

I really can't understand where you are coming from with any of this (Please don't take offense since you have been very helpful with explaining what you think I don't want to insult you) I can't imagine a D&D world like that. It seems to me to lack all of the high fantasy elements I am used to...

that is one of my big pet peeves. "X is over powered so I don't let people play them." "You do realize you let other more powerful things in" "Sorry I'm not listening anymore..." I will again draw the Bo9S out from 3.5... I have seen people claim they wont let a warblade in because it is...

right (and again I am really trying to understand what your saying, and not trying to argue with you or prove a point) I understand that there are places that as a socoity didn't use something... I just can't understand any large population including PC classes and not one of them ever picked up...

I disagree it is a group discion that the group needs to come to.... ok... so you and your friends have a set of things you agree on (like mine do) but when you play with others you just expect them to fall in line and bring nothing to the game??? hey that almost makes sense... like you worked...

your right in that you can't solve an argument by declaring compromise, you have to work toward a compromise. your also right that if one person gets what they want and the other gets nothing that isn't compromise... but again, that means if the DM gets what he wants and the players don't that...

so where does compromise start? lets look at what has been said (I'm totally not going back and quoting everyone) and imagine where a group or a game might be better. lets start with why do people complain about splat books... well someone likes them and someone else doesn't... It isn't even...

so jerk behavior is subjective... but you then say what is and isn't being a jerk :erm: ok, so that was my whole idea of rule 0 not being a jerk... what about when he says yes... see it is 3-8 people all trying to have fun... giving one final say means 2-7 of them just have to accept it. Why...

doctorhook I was afraid that was going to be the answer... anyone else??